Below is the Mac Pro Refresh Schedule from MacRumors. If this isn't enough to convince you they are abandoning the Pro's...

Nonsense. The MBP update schedule is largely limited by the availability of faster Xeon processors at a reasonable (!) price point and in sufficient quantity for Apple to use. There ARE faster Xeon processors out there, but not much faster, and very hard to get and expensive.

When Intel has a significant improvement in CPU availability, Apple will undoubtedly update the Pro.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

After reading a lot of the complaints about Apple not catering to the "pros" anymore, I'd like to just make a few observations, if I might.

When the Mac Pro was introduced a lot of people, myself included, were very impressed with a computer that finally "got it". It could be upgraded with ease because of it's great design. Hard drives, memory, all sorts of internal bits and pieces ... no problem. There is absolutely no reason that the Mac Pro one bought years ago had to remain the same (waiting for Apple to "re-design it) and about the only thing I think it lacks, even now, is thunderbolt capability, which did not exist then and I think we'll see it on new Mac Pros next year, so the never ending complaints about lack of upgrades to Mac Pro are completely unnecessary and unwarranted, imho.

As far as FCPX is concerned, it was noted, at the time, to have been designed with digital media in mind and most of the complaints were coming from people who still had a need to work with tape. I can understand that ...... with change comes uncertainty and a degree of discomfort .... but the fact is that the future is digital and to ignore that fact is to invite "obsolescence through ignorance" .... and that has never been a part of Apple's DNA, nor should it be.

The main difference between Apple and PC (Windows) has usually been that PC tries to drag the past along with it, while Apple has been more than ready to give up some of the past in order to redefine the future.

Finally, as important as the "pro market" may be ... the fact is there are a whole lot more of "us" than there are of "them". I think Apple can serve both markets .... but there should be no doubt as to who drives sales .... and with it the profit to develop machines capable to service both markets. It's the same reason that there are more "people cars" sold than "race cars".

Apple has long ago stopped being a niche company .... and I'm glad it has.

Apple, bigger than Google, √ ..... bigger than Microsoft, √ The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.

From a business perspective, I respect Apple's direction on FCP X: Court hundreds of thousands of amateur/enthusiasts with something more powerful than iMovie that serves 98% of their workflow needs, or satisfy 72 industry professionals with such granular workflows that anything short of Final Cut Pro God Edition would not be enough?

Final Cut Express.

I don't think it was so much 'that' Apple changed FCP - but how they went about it.
Dropping support overnight with no warning and changing direction completely, doesn't usually sit well with enterprise. Enterprise sets the standards and smaller studios follow suit to be compatible.
Was a bit 'too bold' and a PR nightmare.

It's actually better or worse than that, depending on who you are. Commercial use is allowed, but the license is tied to the user, not to the hardware. So if you're an individual, you can have it installed on as many Macs as you own and control (no real limit, as far as I'm aware of). If you're a production house, each license is tied to a seat, so five editors would require five licenses each at $400 for the suite. But again, that's tied to the number of editors and not the hardware, so you can have a studio with 20+ Macs and only need to pay for the amount of editors you have.

You know, I helped cut an independent film a few years ago on Final Cut Pro 6 at the time, and lately I have been saying to myself recently, "Wow, if we had this back then, things would have been so much easier." We spent literally hours color correcting some scenes, and I know that many (not all) could have been fixed in a few minutes with FCPX's automatic color correction. Also, having features like compound clips would have helped prevent the occasional loss of sync from certain video and audio elements as we made changes earlier in the timeline.

So here's my question - are we less professional if we would have preferred using FCPX over the older systems at the time? Are we not "professionals" if we're not backed by a multi-million dollar studio? I hate this idea that FCPX is only used by "prosumers" simply because it's missing some features. I'd say a lot of us video editors consider ourselves professionals. If FCPX's current feature set works well within your workflow, why not use it? The tool doesn't make the man. If it works for you, great. If it doesn't, there's alternatives.

But seriously, FCPX is not just for "prosumers."

I am not going to debate the meaning of a word coined by Alvin Toffler, I simply use it as he did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosumer . I neither hate it not like it, it is just a useful term to describe a certain category of users.

Secondly I didn't say FCProX could not be used by professionals I said it was aimed squarely at those that fit the prosumer profile. Where as 7 was aimed at the full time professionals and also used by prosumers and many hobbyists.

I use both and I have made my living in the field since non-linear became feasible. I love both but feel 8 finished, would better serve the full time production houses than X. Which by the way isn't me, indeed X probably suits my needs better but I love 7 and would no doubt buy 8 too if it were to become available.

Dick Applebaum's comments on cost above are well taken. 8 if released should be less expensive for group seats.

From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've owned them all.Long on AAPL so biased"Google doesn't sell you anything, Google just sells you!"

So Apple please go back and finish it! There is room for FCPro 8 and Final Cut X. Just drop iMovie for X and you're all set.

Others have mentioned that bringing a 10 + year old architecture into the 64-bit world is a major rewrite -- an excellent time to do a repurposing of the app for the next 10 years and beyond... You just can't take advantage of the future, by relying on the past.

Also, I understand that there were quite a few, costly, licensing issues in the existing FCP product.

Apple, and you, the Apple user have to decide:

-- stay in the present
-- focus on the past
-- focus on the future.

I believe that Apple made the right decision with FCP X...

However, they really screwed up by EOLing FCP 7 the way they did...

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -

Everyone keeps saying that Apple has made a shift from prosumer to consumer with this software... but I'm not convinced. I think that Apple has simply made an intelligent wager on this paradigm shift with FCPX which has, for the time being, reduced its feature set. However, over time when they regain these features they'll be 5 legs up on other pro editor apps, already prepared to interface with future hardware changes in the industry (such as touch screens).

And guess who controls the future of hardware in the industry.

Agree with what you say, but I think you meant "shift from pro to prosumer".

(AI reported) Apple was scaling Final Cut Studio applications with a significant makeover that would better target Apple's mainstream "prosumer" customer base, rather than high-end professionals.
This was AI's take. Apple has stated no such intent.
(just to be clear)

I have already studied up on the best hardware to make a Hackintosh. And I will also stay on Snow Leopard as long as possible. And when that becomes too difficult I will have to go to Windows I guess. Damn shame, but the writing is on the wall.

Others have mentioned that bringing a 10 + year old architecture into the 64-bit world is a major rewrite -- an excellent time to do a repurposing of the app for the next 10 years and beyond... You just can't take advantage of the future, by relying on the past.

Also, I understand that there were quite a few, costly, licensing issues in the existing FCP product.

Apple, and you, the Apple user have to decide:

-- stay in the present
-- focus on the past
-- focus on the future.

I believe that Apple made the right decision with FCP X...

However, they really screwed up by EOLing FCP 7 the way they did...

I wrote that hoping they were reasonably far along with 8 at the time they dropped it for X. Perhaps X could be split into two versions; a more production environment oriented version and the current style. That might solve all the issues.

From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've owned them all.Long on AAPL so biased"Google doesn't sell you anything, Google just sells you!"

Others have mentioned that bringing a 10 + year old architecture into the 64-bit world is a major rewrite -- an excellent time to do a repurposing of the app for the next 10 years and beyond... You just can't take advantage of the future, by relying on the past.

Also, I understand that there were quite a few, costly, licensing issues in the existing FCP product.

Excuse me but Apple is embracing the prosumer market! It may or may not be letting down the folks in the professional market (I will have to wait another year or so to answer that one) but certainly not the prosumers. FinalCut X, as an example, is totally a prosumer product.

How did the early versions of FCP, say, FCP 1.0 through FCP 3.0 compare in usability to FCP X?

AFAICT, there are some pros who are using FCP X for a large portion of their work.

What will today's "pro" do when he finds that the 21st century editor, using FCP X, can deliver as good an editing product, faster and at 1/2 the price.

...Isn't that what the $25,000 Avid "pros" were faced with when FCP started to gain acceptance?

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -

Nonsense. The MBP update schedule is largely limited by the availability of faster Xeon processors at a reasonable (!) price point and in sufficient quantity for Apple to use. There ARE faster Xeon processors out there, but not much faster, and very hard to get and expensive.

When Intel has a significant improvement in CPU availability, Apple will undoubtedly update the Pro.

Steve had a Mac Pro at home. Even though that alone won't sustain a market, he at least seems to value that particular product.

How did the early versions of FCP, say, FCP 1.0 through FCP 3.0 compare in usability to FCP X?

AFAICT, there are some pros who are using FCP X for a large portion of their work.

What will today's "pro" do when he finds that the 21st century editor, using FCP X, can deliver as good an editing product, faster and at 1/2 the price.

...Isn't that what the $25,000 Avid "pros" were faced with when FCP started to gain acceptance?

It is a discussion that's been had over and over in AI.

Many multi-seat production houses were created to work around FCPro as it was and had input much into the development to suit there needs. Half of all US production was on FCPro (I have no idea what the current numbers are). As you said the EOL was dropped on these companies like a brick and they simply could not change even if X was better, it didn't fit in the work flow as was.

As I just said above maybe the parts lacking in X for these production houses could be added and a 'Studio Pro X' could be created out of X. Believe me, I am not a luddite, I have bled all the way on Macs from 1984 with arrows in my back and front keeping up with digital technology.

From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've owned them all.Long on AAPL so biased"Google doesn't sell you anything, Google just sells you!"

Watch out. ConradJoe will add you to his Enemies List
Don't take yourself so seriously. You declare your intention to go back to Windows like the world should take notice? Should I announce my intention to switch brands of motor oil? You know, because its really important for the Internet to know my personal choices! (Yeah right). Apple perhaps made the wrong call, but I thought serious (read: Pro) editors cut on Avid anyway. Oh sure, there were Hollywood editors using FCP, and they've denounced FCPX. But you're not one of them, are you? You're not complaining about Apple borking your editing toolchain. You're complaining about OS X "premiums" and how it cramps your lifestyle choice. If that's the case, then I would say you never valued OS X to begin with. I pay whatever extra it costs to have a Microsoft-free computing experience

I only announce it for the benefit of Apple product managers. When they are querying Google for "switching back to Windows" they'll see +1 comments about that and understand why. :-) BTW you obviously have an axe to grind with MSFT, I on the other hand pick the tools that work best for me. Some people hate Apple because of Chinese labor conditions. Some people hate MSFT because they are considered an evil capitalist corporation that buys up competitors in monopolistic fashion. Pick the lesser of two evils if you wish, but for me, it's what works best for what I do.

I wrote that hoping they were reasonably far along with 8 at the time they dropped it for X. Perhaps X could be split into two versions; a more production environment oriented version and the current style. That might solve all the issues.

It's never going to happen. FCP8 will *never* exist, not as developed by Apple anyway. FCPX is the future of this product, love it or hate it, and it will be built upon with new features and capabilities going forward.

A 64-bit version of Final Cut would require it to be rewritten in Cocoa, as Carbon will never be ported to 64-bit and may have support dropped in OS X all together at some point. No matter how you look at it, Final Cut would need a fresh start, which meant that features from the old program would still not carry over into the new one at launch. Apple decided to take this opportunity to not only rewrite the application, but rethink the entire approach to video editing and solve some of the problems that exist in other NLE systems that are simply inherent to its design and not really something that can be "fixed."

I'll bet anything that both Adobe and Avid will eventually integrate some of FCPX's concepts into their own suites - things like metadata tags, smart collections, background rendering and skimming to name a few. They won't present a radical shift in paradigm like Apple did, but then again, they really can't either. Apple will be fine if it lost 100% of its professional market, but Adobe and Avid would be killed if they screwed them over. Honestly, Apple's the only company that could have possibly made a huge gamble like this and hope it pays off in the future for both themselves and their users.

I only announce it for the benefit of Apple product managers. When they are querying Google for "switching back to Windows" they'll see +1 comments about that and understand why. :-) BTW you obviously have an axe to grind with MSFT, I on the other hand pick the tools that work best for me. Some people hate Apple because of Chinese labor conditions. Some people hate MSFT because they are considered an evil capitalist corporation that buys up competitors in monopolistic fashion. Pick the lesser of two evils if you wish, but for me, it's what works best for what I do.

Good luck with the hope you add to a sea of switchers away from Macs in Google searches

From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've owned them all.Long on AAPL so biased"Google doesn't sell you anything, Google just sells you!"

It's never going to happen. FCP8 will *never* exist, not as developed by Apple anyway. FCPX is the future of this product, love it or hate it, and it will be built upon with new features and capabilities going forward.

A 64-bit version of Final Cut would require it to be rewritten in Cocoa, as Carbon will never be ported to 64-bit and may have support dropped in OS X all together at some point. No matter how you look at it, Final Cut would need a fresh start, which meant that features from the old program would still not carry over into the new one at launch. Apple decided to take this opportunity to not only rewrite the application, but rethink the entire approach to video editing and solve some of the problems that exist in other NLE systems that are simply inherent to its design and not really something that can be "fixed."

I'll bet anything that both Adobe and Avid will eventually integrate some of FCPX's concepts into their own suites - things like metadata tags, smart collections, background rendering and skimming to name a few. They won't present a radical shift in paradigm like Apple did, but then again, they really can't either. Apple will be fine if it lost 100% of its professional market, but Adobe and Avid would be killed if they screwed them over. Honestly, Apple's the only company that could have possibly made a huge gamble like this and hope it pays off in the future for both themselves and their users.

The second sentence in my quote you seemed to ignore did cover an alternative don't you think? X will evolve surely?

From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've owned them all.Long on AAPL so biased"Google doesn't sell you anything, Google just sells you!"

Good luck with the hope you add to a sea of switchers away from Macs in Google searches

209,000 Google results for the exact quoted phrase "switching back to windows". I am sure there are other phrases with various results.

If I was an Apple product manager, I'd be scouring these like a hawk for product requirements - oh but that's right, by your logic they should instead be catering to the millions of others who want a free engraving on their iDevice.

209,000 Google results for the exact quoted phrase "switching back to windows". I am sure there are other phrases with various results.

If I was an Apple product manager, I'd be scouring these like a hawk for product requirements - oh but that's right, by your logic they should instead be catering to the millions of others who want a free engraving on their iDevice.

You think those results are a mathematical sound measure? Try Googling for 'cars run on water using home made hydrolysis'! The results don't change the laws of thermo dynamics do they? They just illustrate there is a ton of rubbish you can google.

From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've owned them all.Long on AAPL so biased"Google doesn't sell you anything, Google just sells you!"

Many multi-seat production houses were created to work around FCPro as it was and had input much into the development to suit there needs. Half of all US production was on FCPro (I have no idea what the current numbers are). As you said the EOL was dropped on these companies like a brick and they simply could not change even if X was better, it didn't fit in the work flow as was.

As I just said above maybe the parts lacking in X for these production houses could be added and a 'Studio Pro X' could be created out of X. Believe me, I am not a luddite, I have bled all the way on Macs from 1984 with arrows in my back and front keeping up with digital technology.

Two of the biggest issues, IMO, are:

1) The inability to open legacy FCP 7 projects in FCP X

I think Apple just dropped the ball and assumed that once a project is finished -- there's no need to access it again... Once editors finished their active FCP 7 projects, there would be no need to access them again -- therefore no requirement to Open or Migrate FCP 7 to FCP X.

2) The inability to pass content between FCP X and other apps, including FCP 7 (in both directions).

I think Apple did/does not have all the pieces in place to make FCP X as self-contained as it eventually will be. Obviously, an XML import/export was/is not complete -- so there was no way to exchange data among apps.

However, less than 3 months after FCP X release, they added fcpxml... not great, but a good start. This illustrates that Apple was working on XML import/export -- and was able to add it to the product in an amazingly short period of time (compared the FCP 1-7 updates). And, there is another FCP X XML flavor named axel. AFAICT, it is very robust and can handle all the things in FCP X -- orders of magnitude more robust than FCP 7 xml.

Apple has said there are some things that they do not want to implement, or want third parties to provide.

I suspect, that within the next 6-12 months we will see acceptable solutions to both the above issues -- likely fro mthird parties.

I think the way it will shake (maybe a bad choice of words for this topic) out is that the "pros" will begin to use FCP X more and more for what it does well: quick editing turn-around. And round trip to other apps for specialty processing.

When Apple was "Apple Computer, Inc." they were more concerned with making powerful Macintosh computers that were used by the publishing, graphic arts, film making, and other creative industries. The higher-end models even echoed some of the high-end workstation-class systems from NEXT. To have an G5 Tower used to be the mark of an accomplished power user. The Apple website would have a front page link to the Pro Story of the week, talking about some business or government or University that deployed a huge IT solution using Apple Pro software and Pro-level Macintosh systems.

Then Apple went consumer, got into making iPods and selling music, and iPhones, and had a whole ton of non-pros using their products, many of whom thought Macs were too difficult to switch to. So Apple worked on making Macs easier to switch to and even easier to work with those consumer products the non-Pros were buying.

Then, Apple became "Apple, Inc." They are getting way more money from non-Pros and pro-sumers than the actual Pros... and they've shifted.

Apple's target market went from University/IT/Creative Pros to middle-to-upper class households that drink Keurig Coffee while they use iPads to read books on their IKEA couch, pondering which wine to have with their Chicken & Gnocchi soup for dinner tonight, as their MacBook Pro is downloading the latest iTunes Movie Rental over 50MB broadband in the living room of a $150K house or $2000/mo apartment in the city, while their Ugg boots dry nicely in the corner beside their North Face winter coat.

It is not like this happened during the name change but after Steve's return. Their window catering to the education and publishing group has long expired.

I have already studied up on the best hardware to make a Hackintosh. And I will also stay on Snow Leopard as long as possible. And when that becomes too difficult I will have to go to Windows I guess. Damn shame, but the writing is on the wall.

1st- Why would someone still be on snow leopard? Lion has more features, allows for icloud, and has much better security features. Unless your job requires some PPC program or you don't use an alternative to a PPC program you absolutely must have- I don't get it.

2nd- What program are you planning on running on Windows that won't run under OSX?

My office has a Mac- one. Because there is no alternative program for sharpdesk- adobe acrobat on a Mac won't allow what the pc version does. I've looked high and low for a product I can "print" or merge multiple files into (some word, some excel, some PDF) and make them all one combined PDF. But if it weren't for that, we'd be all OSX only tomorrow (~12 computers). Unfortunately...

1st- Why would someone still be on snow leopard? Lion has more features, allows for icloud, and has much better security features. Unless your job requires some PPC program or you don't use an alternative to a PPC program you absolutely must have- I don't get it.

2nd- What program are you planning on running on Windows that won't run under OSX?

My office has a Mac- one. Because there is no alternative program for sharpdesk- adobe acrobat on a Mac won't allow what the pc version does. I've looked high and low for a product I can "print" or merge multiple files into (some word, some excel, some PDF) and make them all one combined PDF. But if it weren't for that, we'd be all OSX only tomorrow (~12 computers). Unfortunately...

Many times the sound is synced to camera #1 at the sound booth in the back of the concert hall. The other cameras are not recording audio and even if they were there would be a delay since they are some other distance from the source. That is why they use timecode. It doesn't take more than about 20 meters to make a huge difference. Speed of light verses speed of sound.

I think Apple just dropped the ball and assumed that once a project is finished -- there's no need to access it again... Once editors finished their active FCP 7 projects, there would be no need to access them again -- therefore no requirement to Open or Migrate FCP 7 to FCP X.

2) The inability to pass content between FCP X and other apps, including FCP 7 (in both directions).

I think Apple did/does not have all the pieces in place to make FCP X as self-contained as it eventually will be. Obviously, an XML import/export was/is not complete -- so there was no way to exchange data among apps.

However, less than 3 months after FCP X release, they added fcpxml... not great, but a good start. This illustrates that Apple was working on XML import/export -- and was able to add it to the product in an amazingly short period of time (compared the FCP 1-7 updates). And, there is another FCP X XML flavor named axel. AFAICT, it is very robust and can handle all the things in FCP X -- orders of magnitude more robust than FCP 7 xml.

Apple has said there are some things that they do not want to implement, or want third parties to provide.

I suspect, that within the next 6-12 months we will see acceptable solutions to both the above issues -- likely fro mthird parties.

I think the way it will shake (maybe a bad choice of words for this topic) out is that the "pros" will begin to use FCP X more and more for what it does well: quick editing turn-around. And round trip to other apps for specialty processing.

I agree with you for the most part. I did a multi camera edit the day I got FCProX but it is a work around.

My personal biggest issue is the overly automated nature of the beast but that is probably because of many thousands of hours using 7 and it's predecessors. It's akin to the Lion apps auto saving when I want to save something to a specific folder. I know how to do my way it but it threw me for a while and maybe their way is better ... still thinking about that .

I also developed some idiosyncratic tricks that I'd developed over the years that are hard to stop. I always made TV shows backwards. I did a ton one hour shows for ESPN in FCPro and I'd start with the endings and then add the ad breaks and then the going to breaks and so on ... finally filling in the gaps. Not as easy in X although I'm sure it could be done with slugs. But I digress...

From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've owned them all.Long on AAPL so biased"Google doesn't sell you anything, Google just sells you!"

You think those results are a mathematical sound measure? Try Googling for 'cars run on water using home made hydrolysis'! The results don't change the laws of thermo dynamics do they? They just illustrate there is a ton of rubbish you can google.

Not sure what your point is. If I sold a software product, I'd want to make sure I was up to date on feedback about that product coming from a range of sources. Google, Bing, Yahoo queries would be one source for such feedback. Customer surveys, media reports, Conan O'Brien videos poking fun of my product would also be another source.

209,000 Google results for the exact quoted phrase "switching back to windows". I am sure there are other phrases with various results.

If I was an Apple product manager, I'd be scouring these like a hawk for product requirements - oh but that's right, by your logic they should instead be catering to the millions of others who want a free engraving on their iDevice.

Are you serious?

You are going to pay attention to what people say they are going to do?

On the Web?

The first thing you learn in becoming an adult...

Pay attention to what people do -- not what they say!

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -

Many times the sound is synced to camera #1 at the sound booth in the back of the concert hall. The other cameras are not recording audio and even if they were there would be a delay since they are some other distance from the source. That is why they use timecode. It doesn't take more than about 20 meters to make a huge difference. Speed of light verses speed of sound.

And don't forget those freaking neutrinos!

From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've owned them all.Long on AAPL so biased"Google doesn't sell you anything, Google just sells you!"

1st- Why would someone still be on snow leopard? Lion has more features, allows for icloud, and has much better security features. Unless your job requires some PPC program or you don't use an alternative to a PPC program you absolutely must have- I don't get it.

2nd- What program are you planning on running on Windows that won't run under OSX?

My office has a Mac- one. Because there is no alternative program for sharpdesk- adobe acrobat on a Mac won't allow what the pc version does. I've looked high and low for a product I can "print" or merge multiple files into (some word, some excel, some PDF) and make them all one combined PDF. But if it weren't for that, we'd be all OSX only tomorrow (~12 computers). Unfortunately...

Ever thought of looking into PDFpen from Smile Software? Not sure about excel documents, but it does allow you to open up and create PDFs from Word documents and others. Pro version is $99 and the base version is $59. Both are available on the Mac App Store or directly from the developer.